Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blk-throttle: Use more siutable time_after check
 for update slice_start
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC:     <josef@toxicpanda.com>, <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20221123060401.20392-1-shikemeng@huawei.com>
 <20221123060401.20392-12-shikemeng@huawei.com>
 <Y35mnXMNg8HeHXbb@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <ba735734-cffe-18a9-8bb5-03f47c3c8018@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 21:02:03 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Y35mnXMNg8HeHXbb@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


on 11/24/2022 2:29 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:04:01PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> Use more siutable time_after check for update slice_start
> 
> Why is it more suitable?
There is no need to assign tg->slice_start[rw] to start when they are
equal already. So time_after seems more suitable here.

-- 
Best wishes
Kemeng Shi